This brings up a lot of good points, and is a valid argument.  However I have to point out that letting Russia do this could cause NATO and the EU to lose all recognition.  

Russia (And some other countries for that matter) have been making fun of how the US/EU never follows through on its threats for a while now.  The difference this time is that Russia is actively testing if we will do anything about it.  It isn't just posturing anymore.

Unless we respond in kind, the West's legitimacy is forfeit.  I see three clear turning points that this situation can produce, and how I believe the West must respond:

1) Russia Invades Crimea and takes it from the Ukraine.  The West sanctions Russia and bans them from a few things (What is currently happening).

2) Russia invades all of the Ukraine Illegally.  The West really turns on the screws and throws every sanction and asset freezing they can at them.  Georgia is put on the track to being part of Nato, and the West moves away from as many Russian resources as it can.

3) Russia invades other countries along with the Ukraine (Poland, Georgia, or something else).  The West launches missile strikes and investigates a ground war with Russia  (Unlikely to happen unless China agrees to sit this one out).

2) The poll in 2006 wasn't 98% in favor or joining russia.   It was a two part split refferendum with two optionss

1)  Renounce independence and possibly get rid of autonomy.

2)  Stay Independent and maybe later join Russa.

1.  

Unless you can tell the future (I sure as hell can't!), I'm not sure if anyone should write off any future referendum result. Just because a poll says something, it don't mean shit. The actual results of the independence referendum (on the day) is what matters. I see it being very close. 

2.  Except it wasn't even disguised as anything.

Well if they were intent on annexing a region, wouldn't they have just done it? Rather than try and make it look like it was approved by the general population. The Russians were in Sevastopol anyway (a military base leased to them by Ukraine) and were actually 'invited' over by former president Yakanovich (or however you spell it). On that basis, i'm not sure if it was really an invasion to begin with. But, I'm just going to accept the will of the Crimean people. Ukraine itself is a very polarised nation (split between Russia and EU supporters). The west may say Crimea was rigged, but with so many Russian speaking people there in the first place, the result was obvious. They didn't come over night. 

3.   Only like ~100,000 people died...  Which is a small number compaired to the general pile of bodies generated by stalin's soviet Russia.

still I'm not sure if losing between 30-50% of an enthic population due to ethnic cleansing counts as "not a big" deal.

Just because something isn't your fight doesn't mean you have to support it, or want people to support it.

Show me a source please because i have never heard of this. 

That said, ethnic cleansing sort of is our buisness international law wise.  Even though rarely anything is done about it... and i'd think it's fair to argue that more then a majority vote should be needed for a group of people who suffered such penalties to be forced back into the nation that committed those acts on them.  Espiecially when they themselves are overwhelmingly against it, and a large portion of those who inflicted it opon them just so happen to ethnically be the poeple who inflicted it opon them.

The only thing that makes this "not our buisness" so to speak, is that Russia is fairly powerful.  That's a fine arguement to make, it's logical, but it should be made honestly.  It's not a matter of the US and UK "not bein a hypocrite because of iraq", or "Democratic majority."

There's plenty of wrong doing in the world beside Russia but why should it be left up to us to sort it out. Why are we that arrogant that we even think we can sort out everyone else's problems? Especially when the west likely caused today's problems by imposing empires on the less fortunate places of the world.

We are good at starting wars but crap at bring a long and prosperous peace to places we invaded like Iraq and Afghanistan, no matter our intentions.  Not like we could afford yet another war (partly why I think we stayed out of Syria) or that the public would appreciate a war when we are told to cut back on everything. 

It's just cowardice and being selfish.

Which is fine, I wouldn't start a war with Russia either.

That said, I'm not going to pretend to give false morality for the "brave" decision to basically ignore the whoe thing... or even worse, dump on the guy for basically ignoring the situation but at least mentioning so displeasure about the situation.

Where i'm from you blame people for hypocritical bad acts, and cheer them for hypocritical good ones.

The Modern era of no major wars basically boils politics to a game of "who got there first".

1) 

Polling works on a small group but to base the opinions of millions of people on what a couple hundred or couple thousand surely can't be that accurate. They are an indicator and nothing more. 

Secondly, North Sea Oil.  Do you think UK polticians are going to allow the Scottish to have all the North sea oil if they vote to cede.

What oil? It got mostly squandered away in the 1980s while the Norwegians have stockpiled there half for the future

If the answer is no, (and quite honestly there is no answer but no) then there is zero way for scottland to fund it's government programs.  Scottland is more socalist then the rest of the UK, and it relies on the UK's general funds to pay for it.  Scotland is a drain on the UK.

And coincidentally because Scotland is so socialist.... Labor and the LDP would never vote for Scotland being allowed to leave... because otherwise this recent blip in Tory power would basically become the long term status quo.

That may be true but those parties have little weight in Scotland (the English have no say). SNP are dominant now with 2/3 of seats in Scottish Parliament since 2007. And if they tried why can't Scotland be like the Scandinavian economies? Those countries are light in industry to say UK or Germany but have very high living standards and are very wealthy. But anyway, a federal Britain would of been better than splitting it up but nevermind.  

2)  Put simply.  No.   If they just invaded and annexed Crimea, that turns from a open handed slap to a closed fist to the international community.  One which basically everybody including China would need to intervene with.

As I said before it's not worth a war over and I think the fact that China is staying quiet is very wise

3)  I'm sure you haven't heard of a lot of ethnic cleansings... they're more common then history likes to admit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_of_the_Crimean_Tatars#cite_note-5

I've not looked into Russian/ Ukrainian history in great detail so stuff like this i've never heard of but the 1940's were truly a dark time to live in. It's hard to believe anyone actually liked Stalin. 

That said... lets take an exagerrated hyperbolic example,  lets say the US south were to cede, and not only cede but decide to reintroduce slavery of all non whites.

IS that something that nobody should intervene in.   Should the US just  let that happen?  Is it none of the UK or EU's buisness.  If Russia and China tried to intervene, would you be critical?

It would be morally wrong to just let them re-establish slavery but my issue is how do we know when to have humanitarian intervention and when to just respect their sovereignty? It's up to the leaders at the time what their government can and can't do and where the boundaries of international law and human rights lay with national sovereignty. None of this has ever been clearly defined because of all the competing ideologies. It's impossible to know if we ever took the right decision at a given time and it's all based on perspective too. When do the intentions go from good will for fellow humans to outright imperialism. I don't know the answer but by not intervening, at least you had no way of making the said situation worse.  

The fact that you support that a group who was ethnically cleansed be forced to rejoin the people who committed that act opon them is morally abhorant, and you should return that liberal tag you generally seem glad to proclaim;.  I mean, espeically when the "Well majority vote!" arguement exists specifically because of that ethnic cleansing.

Tryanny of the majority? Ain't that the biggest flaw with democracy? It's just unfortunate it might be like this

Not enough people agree with you to get your way electivly, well just murder off ethnic groups who disagree with you and then you'll have a majority, and it's all good.

The reasons you stated for lack of intervention mostly shows your lack of a true liberal attitude.  You are argueing from a point of what is soley most beneficial to you.  Which is fine, but own that.

You aren't a liberal, your someone who's politcs fit what best benefits him, and that coincidentally happens to mostly line up liberal.  

A true liberal would realize that the rights of a minority group needs to be protected past such things as a pure majoirty vote.   Hell even the Crimean Russians knew this, hence the need to inflate a voting percentage for a vote they already had won.

You're right i'm not a true liberal, i'm more of a socialist than a liberal. But it's hard to have a decent and informed viewpoint on a distant people when I don't even know any Russians yet alone Crimeans or Tartars. I just like to comment on these kind of events